Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Clears Bully For Publishing

Posted by ryuzaki0 on

stupid_is writes "The BBC are reporting that Judge Ronald Friedman has cleared Bully for publication in Florida. Jack Thompson is, predictably, critical of the decision, stating "You did not see the game, you don't even know what it was you saw." after Take-Two gave him the game, along with someone to play the game for him to watch before he made a decision." This is a follow-up to our story last week about Take-Two handing over copies of Bully per court order.

4 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. good comment by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There's a lot of violence," Judge Friedman said. "A whole lot. Less than we see on television every night."

    It's nice to see that a judge is actually comparing this to the other media that we're exposed to out here in the real world.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:good comment by tkrotchko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's bad.

      It's not a judge's job to put his own personal feelings into the matter.

      It's wrong on a lot of levels:

      1) The judge should have said "I don't rule on video game violence"
      2) He should have said "I am not qualified to look at a game to decide what is okay"
      3) It's not his job to look at a game at decide if it's "Okay" for the rest of the public to play.

      What's next? People can ask a judge if TV show is okay? A magazine? A book?

      Where does this power stem from to rule on the contents of video games? I've never heard of it before.

      This is beyond a slippery slope; it's a cliff. Look, I get that this Jack guy doesn't like video games and violence. Great. Fine. He should be allowed to campaign against them. Free speech works both ways. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take this guy seriously. The judge actually took this guy seriously for a week. That should bother everyone. I'm not commenting on whether Jack has a point; I'm simply questioning this judge putting himself in a position to judge.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    2. Re:good comment by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Free speech works both ways. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take this guy seriously. The judge actually took this guy seriously for a week. That should bother everyone.

      Ever hear the saying "Justice is blind"?

      A judge is supposed to take EVERYBODY seriously. And because the judge took the complaint seriously and worked methodically in dismantling it, Thompson has very little room now to appeal the decision.

      I wouldn't want a judicial system where the guy on the bench could deny me justice just because he thinks I'm a nutbag before I've even argued my case. I should have to PROVE I'm a nutbag before the court can deny me its good graces.

  2. Re:You did not see that game... by rkcallaghan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Dan East wrote:
    You're taking it out of context. From the next sentence in the article, "Mr Thompson criticised the decision to have an employee take him through the game, arguing he could have avoided making violent choices."
    In other words, since it was a pre-release version, and since the judge was only shown what the Take-Two employee decided to demonstrate for him, it's hard to tell what the judge actually saw. I can't even count how many games can be played in a much less violent way if so desired (like not using fatalites in Mortal Combat, or not doing head shots in TFC, etc). Entire areas of the map could also be avoided (like fighting inside of shcools).
    This case involves Jack Thompson and a judge that thus far has demonstrated his ability to act fairly. Despite Jack's reputation himself as an annoyance, the Judge agreed to actually look at the game before making a decision. Then, upon seeing it, he drew parallels to existing societal norms. So far these are the actions of a rational man; and they're just what we know from a news article.

    I know what happens when you assume, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if Judge Friedman felt he was being decieved, he would have stated so. If I may as well, I'll take the leap that if Jack felt Judge Friedman was being decieved, he would have no problems fufilling his obligation to the court to say so. In short, with lack of evidence to the contrary, and no history of foolish behavior in this case on the part of Judge Friedman -- I am going say that Judge Friedman did his job, and its judicial armchair quarterbacking on your part to think otherwise because a news article did not detail every step of the trial to your satisfaction.

    ~Rebecca (IANAL, but damn this is my second law related post today)